Sri Vishwanatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Vishwanatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the occupancy rights granted to respondent No.4's father under the order dated 05.01.1979 in TRL No.624/79-80 (30 cents in Sy.No.5/4B and 66 cents in Sy.No.5/5B) should be quashed on the ground that the petitioners' grandfather was in continuous cultivation and occupation of both survey numbers. +1 more

Court's answer

The Land Tribunal correctly apportioned Sy.No.5/5: 1 acre 30 cents (Sy.No.5/5A) to the petitioners' grandfather and 66 cents (Sy.No.5/5B) to respondent No.4's father, the two grants together matching the total extent of 1 acre 96 cents claimed in Form No.7.

Ratio / Principle

Likewise, in Sy.No.5/4 the grants of 25 cents (Sy.No.5/4A) to the petitioners' grandfather and 30 cents (Sy.No.5/4B) to respondent No.4's father account for the total extent of 55 cents claimed in Form No.7.

Key takeaways

Ever since the date of the Tribunal's order, the petitioners and respondent No.4 have been in possession of their respective shares, supporting non-interference with the impugned grant.ratio¶51
The writ petition, filed after a lapse of 35 years although the petitioners' grandfather was a party to and aware of the Land Tribunal proceedings, is barred by inordinate delay and laches; hence there are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.2.ratio¶55
As held in a catena of judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, inordinate delay and laches in initiating proceedings should not be entertained where the proceedings were well within the knowledge of the litigant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (single judge, Rajesh Rai K), 07.11.2025: A writ petition filed in 2016 under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the Land Tribunal, Karkala's order in TRL No.624/79-80 granting occupancy rights to respondent No.4's father over 30 cents in Sy.No.5/4B and 66 cents in Sy.No.5/5B of Kadthala village was dismissed both on delay and on merits. The Tribunal had apportioned the Form No.7 claims consistently with the total extents claimed: in Sy.No.5/4, 25 cents (Sy.No.5/4A) to the petitioners' grandfather and 30 cents (Sy.No.5/4B) to respondent No.4's father (total 55 cents); in Sy.No.5/5, 1 acre 30 cents (Sy.No.5/5A) to the grandfather and 66 cents (Sy.No.5/5B) to respondent No.4's father (total 1 acre 96 cents). Both sides were in possession of their respective shares since the 1979 order, and the petitioners had not challenged their own grant (Annexure-'A'). The challenge after about 35 years, though the grandfather was a party aware of the proceedings, was rejected as barred by inordinate delay and laches.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT PETITION NO. 953 OF 2016 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI VISHWANATHA, S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

SRI SANTHOSH, S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

SMT JYOTHI, D/O LATE SMT SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

SMT VASANTHI, D/O LATE SMT SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI SUDHEER, S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

SRI SUNIL S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MANJE BETTU SHIRIBAILU, KADTHALA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574108, UDUPI DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI U M VANITHA, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA, KARKALA-574104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

SREE VENKATRAMANA DEVARU KARKALA, BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI JAYARAMA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMESH PRABHU, S V TEMPLE ROAD, KARKALA-574104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

SMT PREMA HEGDE, D/O LATE SRI KOLLAYYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DEVASA SHIRIBAILU, KADATHALA VILLAGE-574108, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1, SRI RAJARAM S, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R2 AND R3 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN TRL NO.724/79-80 AND TRL NO.624/79-80 FROM THE FILE OF THE R-2. QUASH THE ORDER DTD.5.1.1979 IN TRL.NO.624/79-80 IN SO FAR AS GRANT OF OCCUPANCY OVER LAND BEARING SY.NO.5/4 MEASURING 0-30 ACRES AND 0-66

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

ACRES IN SY.NO.5/5 OF KADTHALA VILLAGE OF KARKALA TALUK.DIRECT THE R-2 TO GRANT OCCUPANCY OVER LAND BEARING SY.NO.5/4 MEASURING 0-30 ACRES AND 0-66 ACRES IN SY.NO.5/5 OF KADTHALA VILLAGE OF KARKALA TALUK TO THE PETITIONERS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 05.01.1979 in TRL No.624/79-80 passed by respondent No.2 insofar as grant of occupancy right in favour of respondent No.4's father over the land bearing Sy.No.5/4B measuring 30 cents and 66 cents in Sy.No.5/5B of Kadthala village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the grandfather of petitioners has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Kadthala for grant of occupancy right in respect of land in Sy.No.5/4 measuring an extent of 55 cents and Sy.No.5/5 measuring an extent of 1 acre 96 cents along with other survey numbers. The Land Tribunal, after considering his claim, granted occupancy right to an extent of 25 cents in land bearing Sy.No.5/4A and 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.5/5A. In the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

meantime, the father of respondent No.4 also filed Form No.7 in respect of the same lands i.e., Sy.No.5/4 and 5/5 along with other survey numbers. The Land Tribunal, after considering his claim, granted occupancy right to an extent of 30 cents in land bearing Sy.No.5/4B and 66 cents in Sy.No.5/5B. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners herein.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 so also the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the grandfather of the petitioners claimed 1 acre 96 cents in Sy.No.5/5 and 55 cents in Sy.No.5/4, the Land Tribunal granted only 1 acre 30 cents in Sy.No.5/5A and 25 cents in Sy.No.5/4A and granted remaining portion of land in favour of father of respondent No.4. According to her, she is in continuous cultivation and occupation in respect of both lands in Sy.No.5/4 and 5/5 and respondent No.3 is totally a stranger. Accordingly, she prays to quash the order passed in favor of respondent No.4 as per Annexure-'B'.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

Per contra , learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable solely on the ground of delay and latches. Annexure-'B' order has been passed by the Tribunal on 05.11.1979, the petitioners have challenged the same after a lapse of three and half decades. According to him, the grandfather of the petitioners was party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and he was notified by the Tribunal. Having the knowledge of the proceedings and grant of occupancy right in respect of father of respondent No.4, the petitioners remained silent for a period of 35 years and filed this Writ Petition. He also contended that the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal as per Annexure-'A' by granting occupancy right in Sy.No.5/4A and 5/5A to an extent of 25 cents and 1 acre 30 cents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the records made available before me.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

It could be gathered from records, though the grandfather of the petitioners filed Form No.7 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.5/4 totally measuring 55 cents and in Sy.No.5/5 measuring 1 acre 96 cents, after the proceedings, the Land Tribunal granted 25 cents in Sy.No.5/4A and 1 acre 30 cents in Sy.No.5/5A to the grandfather of the petitioners. Subsequently, the father of respondent No.4 also filed Form No.7 in respect of the same survey numbers and the Tribunal granted occupancy right to an extent of 30 cents in Sy.No.5/4B and 66 cents in respect of Sy.No.5/5B.

It could be seen in Form No.7 filed by the grandfather of the petitioners that the total extent of land in Sy.No.5/4 is stated as 55 cents and the total extent of land in Sy.No.5/5 is stated as 1 acre 96 cents. In such circumstance, the Tribunal has rightly granted 1 acre 30 cents to the petitioners' grandfather and 66 cents to the father of respondent No.4 in Sy.No.5/5A and B respectively and 25 cents to the petitioners' grandfather and 30 cents to the father of respondent No.4 in Sy.No.5/4A and B. Ever since from the date of order, the petitioners and respondent No.4 are in possession of their respective shares. In such circumstance, as rightly

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016

HC-KAR

submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the petitioners have not challenged their grant made as per Annexure-'A' and challenged the grant made in favour of father of respondent No.4 that too after lapse of 35 years. This Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that the inordinate delay and latches in initiation of proceedings should not be entertained when the proceedings is well within the knowledge of the litigant. In this case, the grandfather of petitioners was a party and was aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal while granting land to the father of respondent No.4, they have not challenged the order for a period of 35 years. Hence, I find no good grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition lacks merit and same is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as merits.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

HKV